Friday, 27 July 2012

BLOOD world?

So orlygg has suggested working on the background for any retro clone we may come up with.

Personally I think his ideas sound great, I'd be well up for helping flesh them out, if he wants help that is. But, I think the core BLOOD rules should be background-less. There should be no official BLOOD world, rather it would be great to see a multitude of different BLOOD worlds. Every ones BLOOD after all is subtly different but we all need it..

The possibility could exist  to have a multitude of fan settings and or commercially available world settings, assuming of course there are a multitude of people asking for the stuff.

So rather than discuss this topic under thoughts on BLOOD rules or BLOOD law I thought it needed its own space.

What are your thoughts on having an official BLOOD world? Yes, no, sort of but?


  1. Perhaps an optional official BLOOD world that could be made available as a separate supplement would be best. That way, gamers who'd rather make their own worlds won't feel compelled into using it whereas those who don't want to create their own will have the option of using the official one?

  2. IMHO we must separate both things :
    1/ the rules : a lightweight set of well written easy to use rules ;
    2/ the fluff : we could propose a "generic" official fantasy world from the BLOOD Team, but it must be optional and "published" apart from the rules.

    From what I see now, if the world is linked to the rules a lot of people believes that you can only play the games with the rules in this world. "Back in the old days" every RPG or Fantasy campaign was a unique one (my OD&D campaign was in my world and the one from a friend was in his world), and I do believe it's the way to play, focus on the narrative is important, but the narrative must also come from the players, no ?

  3. We don't have to say the word 'official' anywhere, the word 'example' would give the right impression I think. Like how GW themselves started out by (basically)saying 'use these rules for any setting you like, but we decided to develop one of our own so we could make sense of the troops, heroes and situations.'

    Maybe place a disclaimer right at the start of the basic rules or Bestiary section that reads 'BLOOD is intended to be used as a generic fantasy wargame ruleset usable with any collection of miniatures representing whatever forces you want to field and play with. but if you want some pre-generated armies, heroes, troop types and some more scenario ideas to get you started you can always download our free example setting "Fields of BLOOD" (or whatever). It's chock full of classic Fantasy wargaming background material and archetypal races to bring to the field!' or something roughly along those lines.

  4. I don't know how many of you are familiar with all the 18th century 'imaginations' that are out there in the blogosphere. Basically each wargamer has created there own pair of opposing duchys or principalities around the time of the Seven Years War (mid 1700's). The level of detail is down to the individual but most create their own maps, uniforms and regiments - sometimes based on historical ones other times entirely of their own making. There is one blog 'Emperor vs Elector' ( that gathers the individual blogs together and makes announcement of general interest to the site's followers. Personaly I think that is the best way forward - with this Oldhammer blog acting as our version of the Emperor vs Elector. What does anyone else think?

  5. I think setting should remain generic, maybe as a suggested nature but not integral to the game. One of GW's main weak points is it's marriage to the fluff. It's fun but becomes too restrictive.